If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I would disagree with this completely, I would say this is the worst thing you can do! One of the things people were worrying about in this country when they were thinking of bringing laws that allowed you to use force, and I believe them when they say this. They were saying that if your allowed to use force and maybe even kill them burgalers will basically shoot first without a doubt. Meaning you go from a crime that is basically just stealing items and items are really not that valuable you can get them back and maybe fearing for a little while. To having you or some of your family murdered...

Except that for the burglar, it will be a conscious and calculated decision of "There is a good chance I might kill someone, and the sentence for that is much worse than breaking and entering, rape, etc".

Sidebar: I have a lot of family in New York and I've been mugged twice (and my cousin four times, since he actually lives there... and is an idiot). It sucks, it is terrifying, and it is really annoying (protip: If you are at all going near a shady area and you can't avoid it, remove the credit cards and driver's license and the like from your wallet, shove them in your shoes, and just leave 40 or 60 bucks in the wallet. That way you aren't really out much and you can focus on calling the cops BEFORE calling your credit card company to cancel said cards. By keeping a decent amount of cash in the wallet and just giving the guy a wallet you won't look like you are "holding out", and most criminals will probably realize that they have a profit and should run, rather than try to get you to give them your cards). But the thing is, each time the mugger never actually pulled a gun. The first time the guy had a knife, and the second guy just acted very menacingly. Why? Because the gun raises the sentence and using the gun raises it even further.

Similar principle here. With the knowledge that the victim might fight back, the criminals looking for a victim are discouraged. The criminals who are trying to slip in and out won't even dare to risk a robbery while people are inside. That just leaves the people who were prepared to use deadly force to begin with, and it is THOSE people who I would like to have an option against.

Now, obviously this isn't perfect. Idiots don't think things through, and I think we can all agree that a lot of criminals are idiots. And yes, some criminals might decide to "up their game". But many others will decide "Not worth it, wait until we KNOW nobody is there". It is just a matter of ratios.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

For some reason the Dutch news is running this local story from an American county I'm sure 99,99% of Dutch have never even heard of, but in any case, from the description of the situation and Florida's infamous Stand Your Ground law it doesn't at all surprise me that something like this happened.

Originally Posted by Fumarole

Zimmerman wasn't deemed innocent; the verdict was not guilty. It may seem like petty semantics, but it is not in a very important way. A juror can believe a defendant guilty but still vote not guilty if the evidence does not meet the criteria required for a guilty vote.

Indeed, it is important to remember this - especially in the United States.

"He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~ Luke 4:18

- Christopher Cervini was actually engaging in criminal behavior
- Christopher Cervini was not alone in his criminal endeavors
- Christopher Cervini's accomplices had police records for burglary and robbery
- Roderick Scott clearly identified himself and that he was armed
- Christopher Cervini was drunk and on amphetimenes at that time
- Christopher Cervini attacked Roderick Scott with witnesses present
- Roderick Scott was immediately arrested and indicted
- Roderick Scott testified in his own defense with only a court-appointed lawyer

Try harder, kiddo.

Last edited by Nalano; 16-07-2013 at 04:10 AM.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Cervini deserved to die for rummaging for chump change and cigarettes? It wasn't even the shooter's property. His cousin's petty theft criminal record, of which Scott knew nothing, made it okay to shoot?
IIRC Cervini didn't even manage to hit Scott. He most likely tried to stall him as his cousing was running away. His cousin's testimony was different from the initial statements and contradictory to Scott's girlfriend's anyway.

Back to Zimmerman, the defense articulated the following:
1) Trayvon was the one who initiated the fight.
2) As proof they stated Trayvon's corpse had no wounds other than the bullet wound while showing pictures of a wounded/bloody Zimmerman.
3) They claimed the recorded yells for help was in fact from Zimmerman during this beat down, and for good measure he had friends who testified that it was in fact his voice.
4) Because Zimmerman's head hit concrete he felt stunned and feared for his life.
5) Zimmerman's only hope to stop being attacked was to use his gun.
5) Gun forensics show that Trayvon was in fact on top of him when the gun was fired.

Cervini deserved to die for rummaging for chump change and cigarettes?

Your false equivalency is about as bullshit as the lies you regurgitate from Zimmerman's defense lawyer. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for displaying such a lack of critical thinking, and just about the only thing you have going for you in this thread is that you haven't gone off the deep end of execrable human shittiness that Gundato exhibited with this zinger:

Originally Posted by gundato

Also: While I REALLY don't want to believe it, I got a strong vibe of Martin's family seeing an excuse to profit/be famous for this from the interviews and coverage.

Gundato, there is something seriously fucking wrong with you.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

None of which could have happened if a guy with a gun hadn't started following him late at night. Just because Trayvon swung first (if he even did, all we've got is Zimmerman's word) following someone at night with a gun is justifiable grounds for self defense. Let's be real here. Zimmerman created a circumstance that provoked a fight that gave him the right to kill someone. And if the law thinks that's OK then the law is an ass.

Your false equivalency is about as bullshit as the lies you regurgitate from Zimmerman's defense lawyer.

What are the arguments against the ballistic, photographic and forensic proof?

Half of your previous response was that Cervini & co. were criminals. I thought that was intended to somehow justify Scott's actions. Hopefully this petty theft held no significance in the verdict.

Originally Posted by Serenegoose

Zimmerman created a circumstance that provoked a fight that gave him the right to kill someone. And if the law thinks that's OK then the law is an ass.

A juror's opinion: I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch and he profiled anyone that was acting strange.

[Zimmerman] got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhood and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he should have.It just went terribly wrong. I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and called 911 he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car.

I feel sorry for both of them. I think both of them were responsible for the situation they got themselves into. I think they each could have made the decision to walk away.

[when asked if she would be comfortable with GZ as neighborhood watch]
If he didn’t go too far. He didn’t stop at the limitations he should have stopped at. I would feel comfortable having George, but I think he’s learned a good lesson. I think he didn’t know when to stop.

Maybe she has a point. 18 months of hell and a life of constant paranoia are perhaps enough punishment and a good lesson. It's not like American prisons are known to reform people.

This whole situation is really frustrating to me. I wish I wasn't so frustrated by the black community for their logic in this tragedy/travesty. Read what I said, "I wish I wasn't frustrated." It is bringing out a lot of anger in me that I don't need to have; however, this "no justice for a black boy" thing has got to go; he was not a boy. If a black man defended himself from a white teen, and the black man was proven not guilty, then so be it. I think the jury did their job. I just wish the real racists, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, would go away.The media is to blame. Politics are to blame. Lastly, this "TM is a modern-day Emmett Till" is sickening.

This whole situation is really frustrating to me. I wish I wasn't so frustrated by the black community for their logic in this tragedy/travesty. Read what I said, "I wish I wasn't frustrated." It is bringing out a lot of anger in me that I don't need to have; however, this "no justice for a black boy" thing has got to go; he was not a boy. If a black man defended himself from a white teen, and the black man was proven not guilty, then so be it. I think the jury did their job. I just wish the real racists, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, would go away.The media is to blame. Politics are to blame. Lastly, this "TM is a modern-day Emmett Till" is sickening.

I see you are continuing the fine Texan political tradition of saying fantastically dumb shit in public.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Except that for the burglar, it will be a conscious and calculated decision of "There is a good chance I might kill someone, and the sentence for that is much worse than breaking and entering, rape, etc".

If that hypothesis is true you should see much less burglary and other crime in Florida than in places without such laws. Is that the case?

The idea that it's ever OK to shoot someone seems rather alien to me, but then I live in a country where driving around with a firearm would be illegal in the first place. How do the "normal" self defence laws work in the US? Over here you're basically allowed to use as much force as is necessary to get out of a dangerous situation; if you end up killing someone who was breaking into your home or shoving you around without threatening your own life you'd most likely get convicted of manslaughter, which seems reasonable. This "stand your ground" law seems to remove any requirement to even try to resolve things without violence and if violence does occur it seems to make it better to kill someone to remove any chance they'd testify against you than to try to hurt them to scare them off, which seems nuts.

The idea that it's ever OK to shoot someone seems rather alien to me, but then I live in a country where driving around with a firearm would be illegal in the first place. How do the "normal" self defence laws work in the US? Over here you're basically allowed to use as much force as is necessary to get out of a dangerous situation; if you end up killing someone who was breaking into your home or shoving you around without threatening your own life you'd most likely get convicted of manslaughter, which seems reasonable. This "stand your ground" law seems to remove any requirement to even try to resolve things without violence and if violence does occur it seems to make it better to kill someone to remove any chance they'd testify against you than to try to hurt them to scare them off, which seems nuts.

Nation-wide, the idea of justifiable self-defense is predicated on the castle doctrine where, if you're in your home, you're granted certain legal immunities for the use of force against an intruder. Outside of your home, you have to prove that you have made an attempt to flee from an assailant and that any use of force was used because there was no other means of escaping the situation (especially, as said earlier, fleeing). In either case, there is also the requirement that the force used is only that which is required to contain the situation; in other words, deadly force is not justified in repelling a non-deadly attack.

The Stand Your Ground law in Florida and some 20 other states essentially states that you need not flee, which means that you can use force the moment you feel threatened of harm, no matter the circumstances. Unless, of course, you're Black. The implications should be obvious: The instigator of the altercation no longer matters, which means that somebody can start a confrontation with full intent of ending it violently, as they have no requirement to attempt to end it non-violently. The law, assuming innocence in the absence of contravening evidence, also favors the gunman because the primary witness to the altercation is now dead and thus cannot give their side. This also undermines the ability to adequately gauge whether excessive force was used, as there is only one side of the story able to be given.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Legally the outcome, imo, was the correct one, and regardless of Stand Your Ground laws the outcome would have been the same. Although, I would hope that this will get people to look at making stand your ground requirements stricter.

If that hypothesis is true you should see much less burglary and other crime in Florida than in places without such laws. Is that the case?

The idea that it's ever OK to shoot someone seems rather alien to me, but then I live in a country where driving around with a firearm would be illegal in the first place. How do the "normal" self defence laws work in the US? Over here you're basically allowed to use as much force as is necessary to get out of a dangerous situation; if you end up killing someone who was breaking into your home or shoving you around without threatening your own life you'd most likely get convicted of manslaughter, which seems reasonable. This "stand your ground" law seems to remove any requirement to even try to resolve things without violence and if violence does occur it seems to make it better to kill someone to remove any chance they'd testify against you than to try to hurt them to scare them off, which seems nuts.

Actually, Stand Your Ground laws are meant to do exactly what you are allowed to do in your homeland: Defend yourself. The theory is that it protects the person defending themselves

Example: Let's say you are an idiot and are trapped in a dead-end alley by someone with a knife who is about to murder you. Now, there is a chance that if you charge them, knock them down, and keep running, you'll survive. Or you'll charge them, get a piece of steel in your heart, and die. Or you'll charge them, get seriously wounded, and manage to escape. But fortunately, you are also the kind of idiot who carries a concealed firearm on your person.
The theory behind the Stand your Ground laws is to protect you in a situation like that. From a purely "Use exactly as much force as you need to", that is a murky situation. Because maybe your life isn't in danger of being ended if you try to run past, but unlike the movies, you might never really recover from your wound. With a Stand your Ground law, you are allowed to say "There is a clear and definite probability of me dying, I am going to protect myself" rather than "Well, if I kill him I'll survive, but I'll probably get arrested and have to re-enact the plot of Con-Air, and I REALLY don't want to grow a mullet or spend even a single minute with Dave Chappelle"

Now, in practice, things get a bit murky, just like with any situation where self-defense is involved. But it is important to always keep in mind the concept of "spin":
A right-wing news source: This law is to protect women from being raped and children from being touched by people who aren't priests (because priests can do no wrong) and it is all about the criminals
A left-wing news source: This law is all about picking fights and murdering people
The coverage of the Zimmerman case: This law is all about murdering little black children

There are a lot of good things about this law and it DOES protect people. Hell, it might be one of the few laws in recent years that actually is designed to protect, rather than punish, people. But it is also dependent on the investigative ability of the police, so there are definite flaws with it, and people can find ways to abuse it.

Also, the "I should just kill him to avoid the courts" is sadly an issue even without Stand Your Ground. Hell, it is even an issue when you aren't at fault. My father was a truck driver for 30 something years and in one accident (the one that made him take up smoking again) a jackass wasn't paying attention and tried to "pass" under his trailer. Ended up getting crushed under the wheels, really horrific. My father was at no fault whatsoever (unlike some other accidents he was involved in...) and was really shaken up. But a few weeks later his boss took him aside and said something along the lines of "You did the right thing, you handled that perfectly, and we understand if you want to take a vacation to get away from driving for a bit. But keep in mind that you got lucky. Because even though anyone with half a brain would realize you weren't at fault, if that fucker had lived he could have tied us up in court cases for years in the hopes of a settlement. And if he had kids and a good lawyer, we would probably have ended up having to let you go for liability purposes"

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

Actually, Stand Your Ground laws are meant to do exactly what you are allowed to do in your homeland: Defend yourself. The theory is that it protects the person defending themselves

No, that's not what he's allowed do and he says so. It's the same across most of Europe.

What you're allowed do is defend yourself in a non-lethal manner. If someone comes into my home with a knife and I beat him back out with a Hurl, as long as I don't kill him, I'm fine. If I beat him to death on my kitchen floor, I'd be put away. If that incident happened here, or across the majority of Europe, Zimmerman would've been found guilty of manslaughter.

"Halo is designed to make the player think "I look like that, I am macho sitting in my undies with my xbox""

Im sorry in your example there are other less lethal ways then to get past the guy with the knife. Also same with the case of Zimmerman in fact he shouldnt of even been in that situation since he should of let the police handle it.